Neel v. Robertson

Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas

Neel v. Robertson

54 Pa. D. & C. 600, 1945 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 55

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County

DecidedAugust 24, 1945

Docketno. 767

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Pa. D. & C. 600 (Neel v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neel v. Robertson, 54 Pa. D. & C. 600, 1945 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 55 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Leach, P. J.,

The sole reason averred for dismissing proceedings is the statement that the summons was issued June 2, 1944, and returned by the sheriff of the said county non est inventus. In answer thereto, plaintiff admits the above fact but states in the argument and in brief of counsel that plaintiff is entitled to issue an alias summons any time within five years and to continue the case to toll the statute of limitations. The authority for this statement is McClurg v. Fryer & Anderson, 15 Pa. 293; Mayo v. James Lees & Sons Company, 326 Pa. 341, and other cases.

It appears, therefore, that defendant is not in court but plaintiff still has the right to bring him in by an alias summons.

And now, August 24, 1945, rule to dismiss case under the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, is dismissed without prejudice to defendant’s right to move to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution if alias summons is not issued promptly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Leach, P. J.,

The sole reason averred for dismissing proceedings is the statement that the summons was issued June 2, 1944, and returned by the sheriff of the said county non est inventus. In answer thereto, plaintiff admits the above fact but states in the argument and in brief of counsel that plaintiff is entitled to issue an alias summons any time within five years and to continue the case to toll the statute of limitations. The authority for this statement is McClurg v. Fryer & Anderson, 15 Pa. 293; Mayo v. James Lees & Sons Company, 326 Pa. 341, and other cases.

It appears, therefore, that defendant is not in court but plaintiff still has the right to bring him in by an alias summons.

And now, August 24, 1945, rule to dismiss case under the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, is dismissed without prejudice to defendant’s right to move to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution if alias summons is not issued promptly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Pa. D. & C. 600, 1945 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neel-v-robertson-pactcompllackaw-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack